Introduction 27
do not make a categorical distinction between ‘mind’ and ‘body’: all mental
affections are presented as being of a physical nature and having a physical
cause. And even those authors who speak about ‘soul’ (psuch ̄e) as distinct
from the body, such as the author ofOn Regimen, still conceive of the soul
as something physical, whose workings and failings can be described in
material terms – for example a particular blend of fire and water – and
influenced by dietary measures.
In this connection, a further major medical writer beyond the Hippo-
cratic Corpus must be mentioned. Praxagoras of Cos is usually referred
to in the handbooks of the history of medicine mainly for his ‘discovery’
of the difference between veins and arteries, his doctrine of the pulse and
his assumption of the so-called ‘vitreous’ humour. A closer study of the
extant material reveals interesting ‘philosophical’ features such as reflection
on inference from signs, distinctions between various types of causes and
symptoms; and of course Praxagoras presents a further intriguing exam-
ple of a doctor connecting Hippocratic medical views (after all, he came
from Cos), Alexandrian medicine (he was the teacher of Herophilus) and
Chrysippus and the early Stoa.
Praxagoras thus marks the transition from the classical to what has come
to be known as the ‘Hellenistic’ period. Here, again, interaction between the
domains of philosophy, medicine and science was particularly lively. To do
justice to all the relevant developments of that extremely significant period
would require a separate volume; some brief remarks must suffice here,
which are important for the understanding of what is at issue in chapters 10
and 11. As in the case of Diocles and Praxagoras, our knowledge of the actual
views held by the main protagonists in Hellenistic medicine is obscured
by the fact that all their works have been lost and the remaining evidence
is fraught with difficulties as a result of fragmentation and distortion by
the source-authors. Yet thanks in particular to some recent major scholarly
contributions, both with regard to the ancient philosophical schools and
their cultural context and to medicine and science, our view of the relevant
stages has been significantly enhanced.^31
First, as I have already mentioned, there is the very significant role of
Aristotelianism in the development of medical research, as testified by the
fragments of authors in the Peripatetic tradition itself such as Theophrastus
and Strato, or by the compilation of medical ideas as found in the Pseudo-
AristotelianProblemata physica. But also later Peripatetics such as Clearchus
and Dicaearchus display a keen interest in medical and physiological
(^31) See especially von Staden ( 1989 ), Garofalo ( 1988 ) and Guardasole ( 1997 ).